Police enter Ecuadorian embassy building

reply to post by Iamschist


No, I am not. How am I proposing that at all?

If anything, that is what you guys are doing! Allowing one man to avoid charges against him by skipping to an embassy? Can everyone accused of rape or any other crime do that now? Seems an easy way to get a nice new life in the sun....

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Iamschist

 

No, I am not. How am I proposing that at all?

If anything, that is what you guys are doing! Allowing one man to avoid charges against him by skipping to an embassy? Can everyone accused of rape or any other crime do that now? Seems an easy way to get a nice new life in the sun....

This is not about rape, this is about one man daring to shake the foundations of corrupt and lying governments. This is the possibility that this same man could rally the apathetic into standing up. This is about TPTB fearing one man, and wanting to silence him forever.

reply to post by stumason
I agree with you, If I'm accused, I will stand my ground, face justice, and fight the charges. This makes him look guilty to me.

Originally posted by stumason
Nice fluff, [...]

Nice ad hominem...

I'm not addressing Assanage allegedly braking Swedish law. I'm addressing Great Britain contemplating braking international law. I believe I can claim GB is braking the law without claiming anything about Assanage.

If Britain chooses to brake in to an embassy, it will open a dangerous precedent that might backfire on others, seeking refuge from dictatorships, in our own embassies around the world.

reply to post by Iamschist


Oh, c'mon, he isn't friggin Jesus!

If he had anything big and amazing to say, surely he would have done it by now. He hasn't exactly got much left to lose. His one coup de grace was getting those cables and that wasn't even him, but that young sap in the US, who did all the leg work.

reply to post by gekko


It's not breaking International Law though. Firstly, there is no such thing, really. It's a convention and agreed framework, not a "law". Secondly, the Convention states quite clearly that the sending country must abide by the laws of the host country, are only there under invitation and if they break said law they can have their status revoked.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by FFS4000
This is so wrong on so many levels, if we go in we are technically invading another country.

No, it isn't at all. The Embassy remains British territory at all times.

And you can bang on about being ashamed to be British all you want, but we're simply just following the law regarding his arrest. The Swedes issued the arrest warrant for an offence committed in their country, we are simply responding to said request. If we didn't, it throws the whole extradition system in Europe into doubt. I know it is fashionable to assume Assange is innocent, but if he was then surely it should be a simple case of proving it. He could never be deported from Sweden to the US anyway, as the European Convention on Human Rights would prevent it, as he would be facing a possible death sentence or unfair trial.

As it stands, he has done a runner while on bail and not only abandoned those who supported him while fighting extradition, but also brought the Embassy itself into disrepute. The international convention dictating such things as Embassies is quite clear, Diplomats must respect the host countries law. They may be immune from prosecution, but that doesn't mean they can break the law, which is what they are doing by assisting an offender. As a result, they can all be declared PNG and the embassy have it's privileges removed.

Typical. He knows more than you or I and whatever the media says is to sell product. It is funny how someone actually stands up to the establishment and you and your like kin only wish but to put him down.
Let us have our new hero and let his doing actions become a reminder that there is hope and a way to over throw oppression. - bet that if he was a brit you would be far more understanding.

reply to post by magma


I am not forming my opinion on nationality or even over his Wikileaks endeavours. I am simply viewing this as one man facing a rape charge trying to do a runner. Whether he was British, Australian or even a Troglodyte has no bearing. You seem to be basing your opinion on emotion, not fact.

You see him as a modern Robin Hood figure, basically saying "it doesn't matter if he is accused of rape, let us have our Hero.... "

Really?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Iamschist

 

Oh, c'mon, he isn't friggin Jesus!

If he had anything big and amazing to say, surely he would have done it by now. He hasn't exactly got much left to lose. His one coup de grace was getting those cables and that wasn't even him, but that young sap in the US, who did all the leg work.

No one said anything about Jesus. I think it took courage to publish that information knowing that when you challenge Governments, they come after you. He can be compared with the Chinese activist imho.

I agree with gekko, that violating an Embassy is a dangerous precedent and having one of the so called 'free nations' do so is a travesty of what that nation supposedly stands for.

reply to post by stumason


So how come everyone has been respecting international laws, or agreements if you will, up until now? Even during the cold war, I remember protests being made in defection cases, but I can not remember any embassies being stormed by police forces.

reply to post by gekko


Exactly how many Embassies have been "stormed" today?

Don't forget, that building is not the Embassy. They occupy an apartment within it.

Twitter broke this

twitter.com/wikileaks/status/236067635798896640
twitter.com/wlpress/status/236066313561325569

WikiLeaks Press @wlpress 7 min

Mirror of frmr British Ambassador Craig Murray's (@CraigMurrayorg) tip that UK has bent to US pressure. #Assange pastie.org...

2 min
WikiLeaks @wikileaks

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murry: confirmation that the UK plans to storm embassy illegally to seize Assange www.craigmurray.org.uk... …

pastie.org/4521037

Taken from www.craigmurray.org.uk... which is currently down.

America’s Vassal Acts Decisively and Illegally
by craig on August 16, 2012 11:30 am in Uncategorized
I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

(...)

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by gekko

 

Exactly how many Embassies have been "stormed" today?

None. We are talking about threats and possibillities

Don't forget, that building is not the Embassy. They occupy an apartment within it.

Oh, so the Ecuadorians are occupiing it now... Sorry, couldn't resist

Why don't you answer my questions stumason?

Originally posted by gekko

Originally posted by stumason
Nice fluff, [...]

Nice ad hominem...

I'm not addressing Assanage allegedly braking Swedish law. I'm addressing Great Britain contemplating braking international law. I believe I can claim GB is braking the law without claiming anything about Assanage.

If Britain chooses to brake in to an embassy, it will open a dangerous precedent that might backfire on others, seeking refuge from dictatorships, in our own embassies around the world.

Strictly I suppose the Foreign Office is saying there would be no breach of law because, as per the Diplomatic & Consular Premises Act 1987, the Ecuadorian Embassy would cease to be an Embassy before anyone went in. But like you I don't like the sound of it.

I don't know why the Ecuadorians could not have been asked nicely to hand Assange over and, if they refused, just kick the lot out and recall ours from Quito. It would then be necessary obviously to ensure the Embassy premises are secure and turn off the power and water etc. It might then not be too long before a pasty face appears at the window crying to be let out.

reply to post by gekko


I have...

Which have I missed out? And why is it I must answer yours? No one, to date, has answered my question..

If this was a Joe Bloggs running from a rape charge, no JA, would you feel the same? Why does he get special dispensation to claim asylum?

reply to post by ladyteeny


Yes I agree, apparently he represents a clear and present danger to the establishment. The PTB desparately need to apprehend this man and send out a clear message to all other would be "Whistleblowers" that you will be tracked down and caught.Your reputation will be destroyed first (sex charges) and then you will be put in a very cold dark room for a very long time if you dare to expose their lies and deceit. The status quo must be maintained at all times.

I fear for this man's life I really do, it was very brave of him to try and open peoples eyes but he is a major target now and they will stop at nothing to get their man. Hopefully some people might now question the methods and tactics used in this case.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by magma

 

I am not forming my opinion on nationality or even over his Wikileaks endeavours. I am simply viewing this as one man facing a rape charge trying to do a runner. Whether he was British, Australian or even a Troglodyte has no bearing. You seem to be basing your opinion on emotion, not fact.

You see him as a modern Robin Hood figure, basically saying "it doesn't matter if he is accused of rape, let us have our Hero.... "
Really?

I understand the facts. One day the truth will be revealed. He says he has done nothing wrong and the allegations are part of a conspiracy to persercute him. Give the man some credit.

He is backed into a corner and you should know what happens when you back an aussie into a corner.

Many innocent men have been executed for crimes they did not commit.

reply to post by stumason


You must have missed this one

Originally posted by gekko
reply to post by stumason

 

So how come everyone has been respecting international laws, or agreements if you will, up until now? [...]

I believe I have answered all your relevant questions. You must also have missed me stating that I am not discussing the Assanage case, but the possibillity of GB braking international law, or agreements if you will...

reply to post by stumason


The point is it is not Joe Bloggs, this is political and you know that too. This is so America can get their hands on him. That's why people are not happy. It's bullying and a heavy handed approach to a situation that could be dealtt with, without causing a diplomatic crisis between Equador and the UK.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by gekko

 

And why is it I must answer yours?

Oh, and I'm not telling you that you must do anything. We're all grown adults in here I think